Some weeks ago I reported here on how Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, the alarmist director of the Potsdam Institute, appeared on a leading German talk show together with Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann and others to discuss climate change and the rash of storms that had hit the Atlantic and North Sea.

In the talk round Kachelmann (a warmist) poured plenty of cold water on the often used claim that hurricanes and storms have all gotten worse due to man-made global warming. Kachelmann told the audience that experts had evaluated the data from the German Weather Service and concluded “there has been no increase in frequency in these events“ and that the global data on tropical storms the American weather agencies found that up to now there has been “no increase in frequency”.

And when asked about the “monster hurricanes” which had hit the Caribbean and USA, Kachelmann commented:

Yes, this is an active season. But it is not a record season. It is not anything that has not happened before. When we look back at the last 50 or 60 years, we see no trend.”

That level of honesty got Kachelmann some international attention and it was simply too much for the über-caffeinated Stefan Rahmstorf — a Schellnhuber underling at the Potsdam Institute. At scilogs here Rahmstorf attacked Kachelmann as someone who didn’t know what he was talking about and that his statements were wrong. And in his typical overly disdainful fashion, Rahmstorf pretended to be the bearer of the Truth, and anyone else with a different opinion was wrong.

Kachelmann in turn was somewhat taken aback by Rahmtorf’s petty nastiness at scilog, enough so that he felt compelled to sharply criticize the Potsdam scientist at his site. Here he commented that Rahmstorf’s abrasive approach was “not advancing anything” and that he was “caught up in his own special doggedness in attacking an ideological enemy” even though Kachelmann’s position on climate hardly differs from that of Rahmstorf.

“Holy Climate Inquisition”…”collective mouth-foaming”

Obviously what ticked off Rahmstorf was not so much that Kachelmann disagreed on the science, but that the Swiss meteorologist in fact rejected Rahmstorf’s religious convictions that global warming was causing today’s storms.

Kachelmann further commented on the Rahmstorf attack in blunt terms:

The Holy Climate Inquisition is thus making a huge error because the religious absoluteness with which the orthodoxy is peddled and the collective mouth-foaming that occurs whenever a crime of denial becomes known turns off many people who see it differently, or at least it appears quite strange to them.

Just how much climate has turned into a religion is shown by the tax-money financed revival seminars which provide the ammo to the courageous warriors in their fight against the lost souls of climate atheism. Anyone reading the text of the link that follows below. Invited here are TV meteorologists of the states who are to help in the missionary work to convert the man-eating hordes of deniers and skeptics. Please read through the text:

Kachelmann also thinks Rahmstorf’s rabid attack methods were way over the top, especially in light of the fact that Kachelmann admits to being in 95% agreement with the Rahmstorfs of the world. According to Kachelmann, “you couldn’t do it in a dumber way if you wanted to convince people of a correct and important matter“.

Through marginalization and religious exaltation of his own issues and the beating on people such as myself who are in fact on the ‘right’ side is only distracting us from the people who need to do something about it: the policymakers. But for them in the case of doubt they will always find coal and no speed limits on the autobahns more important – no matter who the direct official advisor to the federal government may be.”

The way to hurt these people is to hold them to their own standards. They claim to be doing science, so show the contradictions, the gaps, the leaps of faith, the assertions unsupported by evidence and sometimes the downright fraud.

Are their premises true and do they support their conclusion? Does empirical evidence support their claims? Did they say the exact opposite last week?

The worrying aspect of all this argument is that in a cooling world storms will increase. The powers that be say this is because the world is warming.
The next problem is green energy does not work so well under snow and ice. Big problems for the future.

It’s always overhyped, very subjective content and everyone is allowed to have his/her own opinion and can express it online. It doesn’t have to be a good one or an informed one, I don’t have to like it and I certainly don’t have to “correct” it 😉

Why defend any of those two above? I don’t like both of them. Let them fight, if they want to …

It appears to me that at least some people accept proponents’ CAGW statements in areas other than their specialty. That’s why they believe they are on the ‘right’ side.

Some, like Mr. Kachelmann, will point out error where they have some knowledge. It is amazing that they will, none the less, believe others’ unsupported statements in light of the lies they know those others’ have perpetuated..